{"id":13727,"date":"2011-06-19T16:40:12","date_gmt":"2011-06-19T21:40:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=13727"},"modified":"2011-06-19T16:40:12","modified_gmt":"2011-06-19T21:40:12","slug":"unoriginal-thoughts-on-appellate-procedure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/06\/unoriginal-thoughts-on-appellate-procedure\/","title":{"rendered":"Unoriginal Thoughts on Appellate Procedure"},"content":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald<\/a><\/em> and <\/a>State ex rel. Huebsch v. Circuit Court for Dane County<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 The decision has rightly generated a good bit of commentary about open government, separation of powers, etc.\u00a0 My goal here is to clarify a very limited but important point of Wisconsin appellate procedure.<\/p>\n

The issues in the decision came to the court in two ways: an appeal from a temporary order that had been certified by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals<\/a> and a petition for a supervisory writ filed by Secretary Huebsch.\u00a0 The two cases were combined for briefing and oral argument.\u00a0 The majority\u2019s order denied the certification, granted the petition for a supervisory writ, and then decided the issues contained in the petition for the writ.<\/p>\n

In the court\u2019s order, the majority refers to the writ request as a \u201cpetition for supervisory\/original jurisdiction\u201d (\u00b6 2) and a \u201cpetition for original action\u201d (\u00b67).\u00a0 In his concurrence, Justice Prosser refers to the writ request as an \u201coriginal action\u201d which \u201csatisfies several of the court\u2019s criteria for an original action publici juris\u201d (\u00b619).<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Abrahamson, in her writing, will have none of this (\u00b6\u00b697-101).\u00a0 She notes that the majority order \u201cmistakenly asserts\u201d that a \u201c\u2019petition for supervisory\/original jurisdiction\u201d was filed by Huebsch \u201cpursuant to Wis. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 (Rules) 809.70 and 809.71,\u201d when in fact the Huebsch petition<\/a> only references 809.71.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That may be true; in a later brief, the DOJ later suggested the court \u201crecast\u201d Huebsch\u2019s petition as one for an \u201coriginal action publici juris.\u201d\u00a0 The Chief Justice goes on to say, \u201cThere is nothing \u2018original\u2019 or \u2018in the first instance\u2019 here. . . . [T]he order and Justice Prosser\u2019s concurrence are blending the separate and distinct concepts of original and appellate jurisdiction.\u201d\u00a0 She includes a footnote here, FN10, where she writes, \u201cThis case is not an original action in any sense of the phrase.\u201d\u00a0 Lawyer-blogger Illusory Tenant picks up this theme as well<\/a>, arguing that \u201csupervisory\/original jurisdiction\u201d is a \u201cfabrication from whole cloth\u201d unsupported by the statute.<\/p>\n

Here I think the Chief Justice and IT are incorrect.\u00a0 As I read the rules of appellate procedure, there are two types of original actions before the Supreme Court: what might be called \u201cpublici juris\u201d original actions, which present a set of facts\/questions to any court for the first time, and \u201csupervisory\u201d original actions, which are still original actions, but stem from the actions of a lower court in a separate case on the same facts.\u00a0 My primary evidence for this position is that the two rules, and only these two rules, are put under the same heading in the statute books (http:\/\/legis.wisconsin.gov\/statutes\/Stat0809.pdf<\/a>): \u201cORIGINAL JURISDICTION PROCEDURE IN SUPREME COURT.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, original actions (.70) and supervisory writs (.71) are both species of the court\u2019s constitutional original jurisdiction.\u00a0 This is also how Justice Crooks sees it: \u201cLet me be clear: taking this case as an original action [publici juris or supervisory authority] is not outside this court\u2019s power\u201d (language in brackets original) (\u00b6145).<\/p>\n

In his blog post, IT emphasizes Wis. Stat. \u00a7\u00a0809.51, which says, \u201cA person may request the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative writ over a court and the presiding judge, or other person or body, by filing a petition and supporting memorandum.\u201d \u00a0IT notes the operative word \u201cor,\u201d setting supervisory jurisdiction and original jurisdiction as two separate types of jurisdiction.\u00a0 However, IT fails to note that .51 applies to the Court of Appeals \u2013 it comes under the subsection \u201cDISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION PROCEDURE IN COURT OF APPEALS.\u201d\u00a0 That doesn\u2019t carry forward to .70 and .71, which detail the Supreme Court\u2019s original jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

In footnote 38, Justice Prosser writes that \u201cthe majority\u2019s order does not give adequate consideration to the distinctions between a petition for a supervisory writ and a petition for an original action.\u201d\u00a0 I think that could be said of much of the writing in and regarding this case.\u00a0 Hopefully this post helps to clarify the situation: petitions for original action publici juris under 809.70 and petitions for supervisory writs under 809.71 are both species of the Court\u2019s original jurisdiction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald and State ex rel. Huebsch v. Circuit Court for Dane County.\u00a0 The decision has rightly generated a good bit of commentary about open government, separation of powers, etc.\u00a0 My goal here is to clarify a very limited but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,75],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-wisconsin","category-wisconsin-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}